[Pelefaifs]

Can you quote me the section relating to "mother" beings in the article to which we're refering, please Kris, I didn't seem to be able to find it when I skimmed through it again just now.

Hi Aloka-D,
It wasn't in the article - I should have made that clear. It was just something which occurred to me whilst reading it, and in light of several threads we've had on BWB too.

My feeling is that an attempt to find compatibility between the two (whilst no doubt well meant) is a little problematic.

Regarding all sentient beings as having been one's mother at one time or another is a key element in Mahayana philosophy and is considered both a factual statement and also useful in the generation of bodhicitta, as far as I can recall from my past studies.

For an adherent of the suttas, it seems this would be just a fabricated notion (based on a mistaken adherence to rebirth philosophy) unnecessary for the cultivation of right view and liberation. The bodhisattva path was never taught in the suttas, as the author mentions.

not everyone has a good interaction with their mother and regards her as a nuturing loving figure You've met my mum then?

Personally I've regarded other living beings as like brothers and sisters on our planet for most of my life, regardless of any religious beliefs I've come into contact with. Nice approach.

Aren't we all followers of the Pali suttas in some way or other though ? I don't really think we are. Although their content may form a kind of basis within the Mahayana schools, their main teachings on emptiness, the two truths, bodhisattva ideals, the darmakaya, Vajrayana etc. are nowhere to be found in the Pali, unless we wish to stretch selected quotes to prove a point.

A Mahayanist, therefore, comes to his practice from an altogether different angle and can't be classed as a follower of the Pali suttas in my opinion.

Obviously, that's a generalisation. There are people who study both.

Namaste